Price drop - inevitable with time.
25mm probable, but not so sure about the f/1.4 pancake part as they seem limited to smaller apertures.
Black: Do what I did, 3rd party leatherette skin on silver model.

That's now "black enough" for me.

If you also want EVF and/or body flash then it'll probably be E-P2 or Pana equivalent before that.

A pancake f/1.4 could exist, but what the quality will be is another matter.

The reduced registration distance of mFT compared to FT should help them a lot with less retrofocus optics. Actually, considering the registration distance of mFT is about 20mm then I don't think they need to go retrofocus at all for a 25mm lens. Meeting telecentricity requirements might be the remaining major problem with big apertures.

Further considering that the mFT system makes abundant use of processing to correct for optical distortion, they could further economise on the optical design there.

You can however get an adapter and get some fast wide angle [28mm probably] legacy lens. It wont be a pancake but it will be compact. !.4 you wont find easily, but certainly an F2.

Legacy lenses are fun, I just got a 55mm 1.4 for my E3. Problem is that 1.4 has SUCH shallow depth of field, its quite difficult to get the focus spot on. You can always stop it down of course, but the image starts to become dim in the viewfinder.

A pancake f/1.4 could exist, but what the quality will be is another matter.

The reduced registration distance of mFT compared to FT should help them a lot with less retrofocus optics. Actually, considering the registration distance of mFT is about 20mm then I don't think they need to go retrofocus at all for a 25mm lens. Meeting telecentricity requirements might be the remaining major problem with big apertures.

Further considering that the mFT system makes abundant use of processing to correct for optical distortion, they could further economise on the optical design there.

I was reading that, but I was not understanding it! I'm guessing you're saying that it should be possible since we're using micro 4/3 rds and not old full frame lenses?

Simpler version (not 100% accurate due to simplifications): in a "simple" lens, the distance between the rear element and sensor plane would be roughly the focal distance. The problem on DSLR systems is doing that with wide angle and the mirror in the way, so they need to stretch it out without actually changing the focal length (retrofocus). That means more optics needed. In mFT a 25mm lens shouldn't be as hard to make as for DSLR since that focal length is greater than the distance from mount to sensor of about 20mm.

The other problem is I believe the mFT and FT systems have a requirement on the angle of light hitting the sensor. Ideally all light would hit the sensor perpendicularly (rear telecentric design) as that gives maximum efficiency. But particularly in a big aperture, the light might come from more angles.

Finally, it is known that both Panasonic and Olympus do software distortion correction in their systems. They might choose to allow the lens to have more distortion if it helps makes it smaller, and let the software sort it out afterwards.

Anyway, I'm far from becoming a lens designer but that's my level of understanding at the moment.

I did always wonder why my 10-20mm lens was so huge and how on earth that would even qualify as 10 - 20mm given that it's over 150mm in length. That sorta answers this nagging question that has been at the back of my mind.

I wish there was a book called "optical physics for photographers" or similar. The only reference books I can find seem to be aimed at degree level physics students or higher, which is proving rather a tough read for me But it does help me understand the design considerations that goes into lenses.

But anyway, the shorter distance to the sensor in mFT means shorter focal length lenses should be easier to make than for DSLRs. Unfortunately it has no benefit at long focal lengths so don't expect a 300mm pancake. Now we just need to let them get on with it.